Y
YzzazzI'm going to predict it here. BYU will beat UCLA.
I wasn't going to let my Euphoria sweep me away this weekend. I was going to remain calm and dispassionate and realize that as amazing as it seems, Tanner Mangum's back to back Hail Mary and Hail Joseph passes were actually about on par with the probabilities. The probability of these outcomes happening are actually more likely than you might suspect. Some estimate them to be about a ten percent possibility of success, which would make that outcome (double saves) about one in 100. Given that the last nearly such miraculous occurrence was 1980 for Jim McHahon's Junior year, and given the number of games BYU has played since then, the timing is about right.
Some estimate that long passes in general are about a 25% completion rate, so if you isolate it down to those two throws it comes to 1 out of 8 or a 12.5% probability. Not a high probability but again add in the number of games played over the years and this really is explainable as that once in a lifetime lottery hit. Mangum just got lucky.
That is the null hypothesis. The one that says BYU has no rational hope in the UCLA game. The one that explains the 16-point spread. The one that drips through every paragraph of Kragthorpe's latest trib article featuring a narrative that trolls out these words:
"Regardless of how it is happening or how sustainable this success is, ... BYU [is] relevant at the moment ... all because Mangum's heaves keep landing in receivers' arms in the end zone...BYU should have lost both games, and imagine how different the outlook in Provo would be if defenders had knocked down Mangum's last passes."
Kragthorpe isn't railing against the Y, and he doesn't even think he is saying something radical. He even tries to give compliments via comparisons to Utah QBs. But in reality, he is giving voice to what we are all thinking. This was probably just luck. No use getting our hopes up. I must say how profoundly grateful I am to Kurt for writing that article, because it galvanized in my mind one crystal clear reality:
That narrative is wrong.
It is natural for sports personalities to drum up heroes and call out the playmakers and hook our egos into the individual drama. That's what captures eyeballs and sells ad space. But in this case it is woefully inadequate to describe what we all witnessed in the last two games.
This wasn't about one guy and one guy alone. If it was, then Taysom should have been destroying Nebraska, because Taysom is clearly a better QB and all things being equal, Tanner wasn't doing as well as Taysom. Kurt might have said BYU should have won both of those games and easily would have if Taysom hadn't broken his foot. That would be a LOGICAL conclusion, if you also believe that Tanner is the whole reason for the outcome of these games.
But the reality is that neither Taysom nor Tanner was the single biggest factor in these games. Neither of them were on the field when Nebraska's QB was sacked and hurried repeatedly, not to mention BSU's QB. Nor were they major contributors to Nacua's hat trick. And while Tanner handed the ball to Hine, it was ALL ADAM that delivered a game-saving 28-yard touchdown rumble. And though Tanner delivered good passes on broken plays, it was multiple receivers, especially Blackmon, knowning where to run when Mangum broke contain.
The reality is that BYU is a team. They won both of those games as a team with many high-productivity contributions. That combination of contributions is so astronomically unusual to have happened by chance that the probabilities aren't even worth trying to figure how many decimal places the percentage goes.
It isn't luck when your whole team plays well. And there is no way a freshman, returned missionary backup, no matter how previously well he played in an Elite 11 competition, can win those games on his own. His contribution was literally the cherry on top. The whole cake and frosting will be stepping off the plane in LA. The Bruins will notice before the second quarter hits the halfway mark that these cats just keep coming back.
UCLA is looking right past BYU, assuming that these dirty groin-punching old men (btw, what's the big deal. Dudes wear cups, right? Stupid behavior, but lets quit pretending the BSU player needs an amber alert ok?) are just cheating their way into a couple of fluke games. They are pretenders.
But consider who the actual pretenders are. UCLA is ranked 10 for beating a young UNLV squad with a brand new coach who led a high-school team last year. Oh and beating a UVA team, barely, that looked worse than UVA's squad from last year. The same one that made a valiant effort, but didn't really keep up with BYU last year. For which BYU was awarded what ranking? Not #10.
UCLA might be good. But they have not faced as stout a defense as what they will face in BYU. If they want to cover the spread, they better hold BYU to 3 points or less. Because they will likely struggle to reach 20. BYU has already shown that their defense is that tough and UCLA's first year QB is that untested.
But here's the thing. What if I'm wrong, and what if it IS all about Tanner. Consider this. He's only played one full game as a starter. You wanna see the real Tanner Mangum? You'll need to watch a couple more weeks because you likely haven't seen him yet.
BYU 31
UCLA 20
I wasn't going to let my Euphoria sweep me away this weekend. I was going to remain calm and dispassionate and realize that as amazing as it seems, Tanner Mangum's back to back Hail Mary and Hail Joseph passes were actually about on par with the probabilities. The probability of these outcomes happening are actually more likely than you might suspect. Some estimate them to be about a ten percent possibility of success, which would make that outcome (double saves) about one in 100. Given that the last nearly such miraculous occurrence was 1980 for Jim McHahon's Junior year, and given the number of games BYU has played since then, the timing is about right.
Some estimate that long passes in general are about a 25% completion rate, so if you isolate it down to those two throws it comes to 1 out of 8 or a 12.5% probability. Not a high probability but again add in the number of games played over the years and this really is explainable as that once in a lifetime lottery hit. Mangum just got lucky.
That is the null hypothesis. The one that says BYU has no rational hope in the UCLA game. The one that explains the 16-point spread. The one that drips through every paragraph of Kragthorpe's latest trib article featuring a narrative that trolls out these words:
"Regardless of how it is happening or how sustainable this success is, ... BYU [is] relevant at the moment ... all because Mangum's heaves keep landing in receivers' arms in the end zone...BYU should have lost both games, and imagine how different the outlook in Provo would be if defenders had knocked down Mangum's last passes."
Kragthorpe isn't railing against the Y, and he doesn't even think he is saying something radical. He even tries to give compliments via comparisons to Utah QBs. But in reality, he is giving voice to what we are all thinking. This was probably just luck. No use getting our hopes up. I must say how profoundly grateful I am to Kurt for writing that article, because it galvanized in my mind one crystal clear reality:
That narrative is wrong.
It is natural for sports personalities to drum up heroes and call out the playmakers and hook our egos into the individual drama. That's what captures eyeballs and sells ad space. But in this case it is woefully inadequate to describe what we all witnessed in the last two games.
This wasn't about one guy and one guy alone. If it was, then Taysom should have been destroying Nebraska, because Taysom is clearly a better QB and all things being equal, Tanner wasn't doing as well as Taysom. Kurt might have said BYU should have won both of those games and easily would have if Taysom hadn't broken his foot. That would be a LOGICAL conclusion, if you also believe that Tanner is the whole reason for the outcome of these games.
But the reality is that neither Taysom nor Tanner was the single biggest factor in these games. Neither of them were on the field when Nebraska's QB was sacked and hurried repeatedly, not to mention BSU's QB. Nor were they major contributors to Nacua's hat trick. And while Tanner handed the ball to Hine, it was ALL ADAM that delivered a game-saving 28-yard touchdown rumble. And though Tanner delivered good passes on broken plays, it was multiple receivers, especially Blackmon, knowning where to run when Mangum broke contain.
The reality is that BYU is a team. They won both of those games as a team with many high-productivity contributions. That combination of contributions is so astronomically unusual to have happened by chance that the probabilities aren't even worth trying to figure how many decimal places the percentage goes.
It isn't luck when your whole team plays well. And there is no way a freshman, returned missionary backup, no matter how previously well he played in an Elite 11 competition, can win those games on his own. His contribution was literally the cherry on top. The whole cake and frosting will be stepping off the plane in LA. The Bruins will notice before the second quarter hits the halfway mark that these cats just keep coming back.
UCLA is looking right past BYU, assuming that these dirty groin-punching old men (btw, what's the big deal. Dudes wear cups, right? Stupid behavior, but lets quit pretending the BSU player needs an amber alert ok?) are just cheating their way into a couple of fluke games. They are pretenders.
But consider who the actual pretenders are. UCLA is ranked 10 for beating a young UNLV squad with a brand new coach who led a high-school team last year. Oh and beating a UVA team, barely, that looked worse than UVA's squad from last year. The same one that made a valiant effort, but didn't really keep up with BYU last year. For which BYU was awarded what ranking? Not #10.
UCLA might be good. But they have not faced as stout a defense as what they will face in BYU. If they want to cover the spread, they better hold BYU to 3 points or less. Because they will likely struggle to reach 20. BYU has already shown that their defense is that tough and UCLA's first year QB is that untested.
But here's the thing. What if I'm wrong, and what if it IS all about Tanner. Consider this. He's only played one full game as a starter. You wanna see the real Tanner Mangum? You'll need to watch a couple more weeks because you likely haven't seen him yet.
BYU 31
UCLA 20